Friday, 21 February 2014

In my mind the Chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission has to act consistently in accordance with the Law and to apply it without fear or favour with an impeccable level of competence (based, in significant measure, on the advice of domain experts).

Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that Dame Anne Owers is not a fit person to be Chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Make up your own mind.

Below is my letter of formal complaint to the Home Office about Dame Anne's conduct.

When I mentioned the existence of this letter of complaint to an acquaintance his reflex response was that the Home Office would find a way to ignore it.

It is now three weeks and counting since I sent the letter to Mr. Chris Blairs of the IPCC Sponsor Unit in the Home Office.

I wish to make a formal complaint to the Home Office
regarding the conduct of Dame Anne Owers, Chair of the Independent Police
Complaints Commission.

The conduct to which this complaint relates raises
fundamental questions about the integrity and competence of Dame Anne, as well
as similar questions regarding the integrity and competence of the Independent
Police Complaints Commission to investigate “serious corruption” by the Police.

I understand from the Direct Communications Unit of the Home
Office that you are the person to whom I should direct my complaint.

This letter attempts to summarise a rather complex
situation. I would be happy to provide fuller documentation to an Investigator
appointed by you and meet with such a person at a convenient time and location
to ensure that he/she fully understands the scope of my concerns regarding Dame
Anne’s conduct.

The essence of the
complaint

The essence of my complaint is that Dame Anne Owers

has
concealed and failed to investigate serious alleged wrongdoing by senior
Police officers in the Metropolitan Police Service and in Thames Valley
Police,

has
concealed and failed to investigate serious alleged wrongdoing by the
Professional Standards functions of the Metropolitan Police Service and of
Thames Valley Police,

has
concealed and failed appropriately to investigate serious alleged
wrongdoing by Deborah Glass, former Deputy Chair of the Independent Police
Complaints Commission, and

has
concealed and failed to correct systematic defective handling of “recordable
conduct matters” by the IPCC

contrary to applicable Law and/or contrary to her duty as
Chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

The effect of the alleged misconduct by Dame Anne is to
conceal alleged “serious corruption” (in the definition of the IPCC Statutory
Guidance) by multiple senior Police officers in the Metropolitan Police
Service, Thames Valley Police and, in all likelihood, in other Police forces.

In my opinion the acts and omissions of Dame Anne may
constitute the criminal offences of perverting the course of justice and/or
misconduct in public office. Given that Dame Anne appears to have misconducted
herself in association with others the possibility of conspiracy to pervert the
course of justice and/or to commit misconduct in public office also arises.

With regard to the possible criminal offences by Dame Anne
and others I reserve the right to report these alleged offences to the Police
in due course.

A complex series
of events

In the following sections I attempt briefly to summarise the
“serious corruption” on the part of named Police officers which has been
concealed by Dame Anne’s misconduct and concealment of such corruption by the
Professional Standards functions of the Metropolitan Police Service and Thames
Valley Police, such Police misconduct also being concealed by the IPCC.

There is a lengthy sequence of applicable correspondence,
copies of which I would be happy to provide, on request, to the Investigator
you appoint.

During the period of that correspondence over some three
years my understanding of the Police complaints system evolved from a position
of fairly complete ignorance to one that I hope is accurate with respect to the
applicable Law.

Sequentially I attempted appropriately to escalate my
concerns with regard to my then understanding of how the system ought to work.

Recordable Conduct
Matters

One category of Police misconduct is termed as recordable
conduct matters.

Fully to understand the Law that relates to “conduct
matters” it is necessary to read together relevant parts of the Police Reform
Act 2002, The Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012 and the IPCC
Statutory Guidance.

Since I assume that neither you nor any appointed
Investigator is likely to be intimately familiar with the legislation it is
expedient to refer you, at this stage, to the IPCC Statutory Guidance where the
concepts of “recordable conduct matters”, “serious corruption” and “mandatory
referrals” are defined.

The current version of the IPCC Statutory Guidance is
available online.

Give the relationship between the 2002 Act, the 2012
Regulations and the Statutory Guidance I believe that the Statutory Guidance
has, in effect, the force of Law.

On 28th October 2010, as a retired medical
practitioner, I reported to Thames Valley Police a suspected murder on the
basis of my understanding of the relevant postmortem and toxicology reports.
This was recorded as a suspected crime by Thames Valley Police and given the
Unique Reference Number 514 of 28th October 2010.

Despite repeated attempts to have this suspected murder
investigated Thames Valley Police, so far as I’m aware, did nothing of any
significance appropriately to investigate the matter. Thames Valley Police
failed even to take the basic step of taking a statement from me accurately to
record the basis for my concerns that caused me to report a suspected murder.

The officers of Thames Valley Police whom I consider may
have perveted the course of justice are Chief Constable Sara Thornton, Deputy
Chief Constable Francis Habgood and former Assistant Chief Constable Helen Ball
(now a Deputy Assistant Commissioner with the Metropolitan Police Service). I
wrote to each of the three named officers several times with a view to securing
the action that I believed honest and competent senior Police officers would
take.

Perverting the course of justice is “serious corruption” in
the definition in the IPCC Statutory Guidance.

The allegations
regarding the Thames
Valley Police and Crime
Commissioner

Dame Anne’s misconduct has resulted in misconduct by the
Thames Valley Police and Crime Commissioner being concealed.

The prescribed person to whom misconduct by Chief Constable
Thornton should be reported is Anthony Stansfeld, the Thames Valley Police and
Crime Commissioner.

I reported in writing to the Thames Valley Police and Crime
Commissioner the suspected “serious corruption” on the part of Chief Constable
Sara Thornton.

The PCC is obliged by the applicable Law to report my
concerns to the IPCC.

Mr. Stansfeld failed to do so, thereby concealing alleged
“serious corruption” on the part of Chief Constable Thornton.

The allegations
regarding Metropolitan Police Service officers

Dame Anne’s misconduct has resulted in alleged “serious
corruption” by several senior Metropolitan Police Service officers being
concealed:

I wrote in 2013 to the Serious Misconduct Investigation Unit
of the Metropolitan Police Service with regard to suspected “serious
corruption” on the part of Deputy Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball.

DAC Ball’s alleged misconduct is a “recordable conduct
matter”. The MPS is obliged by Law, as I understand it, to record the
allegation and is also required by Law to report the matter to the Independent
Police Complaints Commission.

Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey refused to record the
matter, contrary to the applicable Law as I understand it.

I then wrote to Commissioner Hogan-Howe who also refused to
record the matter as required by Law.

I consider that Deputy Commissioner Mackey and Commissioner
Hogan-Howe have perverted the course of justice or, alternatively, have acted
in such a way as constitutes “serious corruption” in the meaning of the IPCC
Statutory Guidance.

The alleged
conspiracy to pervert the course of justice

It is a matter of record that the Metropolitan Police
Service (see Deputy Commissioner Mackey’s letter to me) and the Professional
Standards function of Thames Valley
Police communicated on this matter.

Each, in my view, acted so as to conceal alleged serious
corruption by officers named previously in this letter.

I consider that the Professional Standards functions of the
Metropolitan Police Service and Thames Valley Police may have conspired to
pervert the course of justice.

Failures on the
part of the IPCC

In my view the IPCC had a duty to investigate the alleged
“serious corruption” by Metropolitan Police Service officers and Thames Valley
Police officers.

I wrote to the IPCC, in the person of Deborah Glass (with
whom I had been in correspondence regarding the Hillsborough Disaster) setting
out how I believed the Metropolitan Police Service was corruptly concealing
“serious corruption” by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball.

I expected Ms. Glass to act in accordance with the Law and
require that these “recordable conduct matters” (which, according to the IPCC
Statutory Guidance are “mandatory referrals”) be recorded by the Metroplitan Police Service,
referred to the IPCC and that the IPCC would thoroughly investigate these
allegations of “serious corruption”.

I received a reply from a junior member of staff to the
effect that the IPCC refused to take action on my concerns.

Complaint
regarding Deborah Glass

Given that I had written personally to Deborah Glass and
that I considered that she had acted contrary to the applicable Law I wrote to
Ms. O’Rourke (Secretary to the IPCC) and to Dame Anne Owers formally
complaining about Ms. Glass’s conduct.

It seemed to me that Ms Glass had acted contrary to the
applicable Law. That seemed to me to be gross misconduct on Ms. Glass’s part.
And that remains my view.

The matters outlined earlier in this letter formed only one
element of the complaint regarding Ms Glass’s conduct. Other elements related
to the handling of the Plebgate affair and the Hillsborough Disaster.

I received a reply from Ms O’Rourke to the effect that the
IPCC was going to do nothing about Ms Glass’s perceived misconduct.

Actions of Dame
Anne Owers

It seems to me that a fundamental standard to be met by any
IPCC Chair is compliance with the applicable Law.

Dame Anne has failed to meet that basic standard as I
understand the Law that relates to “recordable conduct matters”.

Given that I wrote personally to Dame Anne regarding
systematic concealment by the IPCC of serious corruption by the Police and the
indication in letters from Ms. O’Rourke that Dame Anne was party to the
decision not to investigate or correct Ms. Glass’s alleged misconduct there is
no doubt of Dame Anne’s personal involvement in these matters.

Dame Anne has concealed, in my view, misconduct by Deborah
Glass, the former Deputy Chair of the IPCC as well as failing to correct systematic
actions by the IPCC contrary to the applicable Law.

perversion
of the course of justice by senior Police officers in the Metropolitan
Police Service and Thames Valley Police, among other forces

actions
contrary to the Law by the Professional Standards functions of the
Metropolitan Police Service and Thames Valley Police

misconduct
by Deborah Glass, formerly Deputy Chair of the IPCC

As indicated earlier it is at least arguable that Dame
Anne’s misconduct may constitute one or more criminal offences.

Actions requested
of you

I understand that your role is as Commissioning Officer with
regard to my complaint.

In the first instance I ask that you promptly acknowledge
receipt of this letter.

I also ask that you appoint an Investigator to investigate
the complaint against Dame Anne. Failure of the IPCC Chair to comply with the
applicable Law, and to refuse and/or fail to correct misconduct by IPCC staff when
asked in writing to do so is, in my view at least, misconduct of the most serious
nature.

I ask you carefully to consider whether, in view of the
seriousness of my concerns, it is appropriate for Dame Anne to be suspended
pending completion of the Investigator’s inquiries.

I also ask you carefully to consider whether you have a duty
to ensure that these matters are reported to a Police force independent of the
Metropolitan Police Service and Thames Valley Police so that the possible
criminal offences may be independently and thoroughly investigated. For the
avoidance of doubt, I consider that such a referral is the appropriate course
of action on your part.

You are likely aware that the Home Secretary has interests
both with respect to the appointment of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner
and the College
of Policing. Given the
allegations regarding the conduct of Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe and Chief Constable
Sara Thornton (and her role with the College
of Policing) I ask you to
consider whether you should inform the Home Secretary of these matters.

In the interests of transparency I have copied this letter
to Dame Anne Owers. I enclose a copy of the covering letter to Dame Anne.

I am also copying this letter and the letter to Dame Anne to
Keith Vaz MP, in view of the Home Affairs Select Committee’s interest in the
work of the IPCC.

Thursday, 20 February 2014

On 12th October 2012 officials from three Police Federation Branches met with Andrew Mitchell MP in Sutton Coldfield following events at Downing Street on 19th September 2012, "Plebgate".

Over time the matter became subject to investigation by West Mercia Police Professional Standards Department on behalf of Warwickshire, West Mercia and West Midlands Police.

Following an intervention in October 2013 by Deborah Glass, then Deputy Chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Reakes-Williams investigation became the subject of public disclosure and discussion.

Below I attach my analysis of the Reakes-Williams investigation.

As you will see there are good reasons to consider the Reakes-Williams investigation as being grossly inadequate.

The following critique was sent on 13th November 2013 to the following:

A copy was also sent to Keith Vaz MP, Chair of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee.

See what you think.

After reading my critique do you accept Deborah Glass's assertion to the public and to the Home Affairs Select Committee that the Reakes-Williams investigation was satisfactory?

Critique of
Reakes-Williams Investigation and related matters

by

Dr. Andrew Watt
2013-11-13

This document provides a summary of causes for concern
regarding the competence and compliance with the applicable Law of the
Reakes-Williams investigation into the conduct of Inspector Ken Mackaill,
Detective Sergeant Stuart Hinton and Sergeant Chris Jones.

It seems to me that there are multiple material failures in
the Reakes-Williams investigation, contrary to the information that the IPCC,
in the person of Deborah Glass, has given to the Home Affairs Select Committee
and the public.

The information available to me as a member of the public is
incomplete therefore the list of identified “failures” is provisional and may
require to be amended in the light of further information.

Given that I am compiling this critique on the basis of
incomplete information the allocation of perceived failings to the Police or
the IPCC may also require revision in the light of fuller information, as and
when that may become available.

Failure to include
possible conspiracy in the Terms of Reference

The January 2013 Terms of Reference related solely to
Inspector Ken Mackaill.

After the referral of Detective Sergeant Hinton and Sergeant
Jones the Terms of Reference for the latter two officers were, it seems,
directed solely at the actions of each individual only.

Two of the three Terms of Reference are in the public
domain. Neither refers to the possibility of conspiracy.

The three officers travelled together to the meeting with Andrew
Mitchell, attended the meeting together and all gave statements of various
types to the media.

I find it extraordinary that neither the Police nor the IPCC
seemingly asked the obvious question of whether or not the three officers acted
together or, in effect, conspired
together.

The IPCC Statutory Guidance allows for conspiracy to be
considered, but if it is to be considered it must be explicitly expressed in
the Terms of Reference.

That was not done and seems to me to be a glaring error by
the Police and the IPCC.

The IPCC should have amended the Terms of Reference to
include the possibility of conspiracy. The Appropriate Authorities should, in
my view, have identified that failure when considering Chief Inspector
Reakes-Williams report.

Failure to keep
the Terms of Reference under review

In later paragraphs I identify issues which ought to have
led to review of the Terms of Reference of the investigation, in light of
evidence elicited.

I can find no evidence that the Terms of Reference were adequately
kept under review. Nor, in fact, any evidence that the Terms of Reference were
kept under review at all.

The unlinking of
the Plebgate and SuttonColdfieldGate investigations

The text of the referral to the IPCC of 24th
December 2012 regarding Inspector Ken Mackaill has not publicly been disclosed.

Deborah Glass has stated, however, that the investigations
into Plebgate and SuttonColdfieldGate (my terms) were “linked” initially (oral
evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee).

I can identify no sound basis for the two inquiries to have
been unlinked.

Unlinking the inquiries seems to me to have had seriously
damaging effects on the investigation into the conduct of Inspector Mackaill,
Detective Sergeant Hinton and Sergeant Jones.

It casts the potential significance of the actions of
Sergeant Ian Edwards (referred to later in this document) into an
uninvestigated void.

It potentially conceals a possible conspiracy between
Metropolitan Police Service officers and Midlands
officers, beginning no later than 21st September 2012.

The failure to
interview Sergeant Ian Edwards

Sergeant Ian Edwards of the West Midlands Police Federation
was instrumental in setting up the meeting held on 12th October
2012.

Bizarrely, he was not interviewed. Nor was he made subject
of a disciplinary investigation.

The possible significance of Sergeant Edwards’ calls of 21st
September 2012 for Mr. Mitchell to resign was neither recognised nor
investigated.

Nor, so far as I can ascertain, were Sergeant Edwards
communications with the three officers obtained or examined, arguably contrary
to the requirement on the Appropriate Authorities expressed in Paragraph 12 of
Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002.

The possibility exists that on or before 21st
September 2012 Sergeant Edwards conspired with one or more Metropolitan Police
officers, possibly one or more Metropolitan Police Federation officials, to
smear Mr. Mitchell.

The possibility exists that Sergeant Edwards was an active
participant in “setting up” Andrew Mitchell at the meeting held on 12th
October 2012.

He is quoted, on ITV.com, as stating “Andrew Mitchell has no option but to resign. We
hold the view that that his position is untenable. If he does not resign, then
Mr Cameron has no choice but to sack him.”.

Sergeant Edwards’ actions required, in my view, to be
thoroughly investigated both with respect to his statements on 21st
September 2012 and in relation to the meeting of 12th October 2012.

Communications with the three officers and with the
Metropolitan Police in the period 18th September 2012 to 12th
October 2012 should be obtained under the duty in Paragraph 12 of Schedule 3 of
the Police Reform Act 2002.

The failure to
interview Jon Gaunt

The Reakes-Williams investigation, so far as I can
ascertain, failed to interview Jon Gaunt.

Thus, so far as I can establish, Mr. Gaunt was not asked
which media organisations he spoke to nor what he had led those media
organisations to expect to happen after the meeting with Mr. Mitchell on 12th
October 2012.

In other words, conveniently for the three officers, the
question of what Jon Gaunt told media organisations to expect was never, so far
as I can ascertain, adequately investigated.

The failure to
identify the relevance of Julie Albray

On 11th October 2012 the Warwickshire, West Mercia and West Midlands Police Federations issued a
Press Release about the planned meeting with Andrew Mitchell on 12th
October.

Julie Albray was named as the media contact.

The Reakes-Williams investigation, so far as I can find,
wholly failed to identify Julie Albray (possibly also known as Julie Horwood)
as a potential participant in the events.

Julie Albray was, it seems, the media contact for the
meeting. She should have been interviewed to ascertain what she had done and to
what extent any relevant actions may have been on the instructions of the three
officers, of Sergeant Ian Edwards or other Police Federation officials.

The possibility exists that colleagues of Julie Albray in
XPR(UK)Ltd may also have played a part. That possibility was not investigated,
so far as I can identify.

Paragraph 12 of Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002
imposes on the Appropriate Authorities a duty to obtain and preserve evidence.

One important document that, so it seems, the
Reakes-Williams investigation failed to identify is the Press Release of 11th
October 2012 jointly by the Warwickshire Police Federation, West Mercia Police
Federation and the West Midlands Police Federation.

Further, so far as I can ascertain, no steps were taken to
obtain or preserve emails, other documents or phone records of the three
officers nor of Sergeant Ian Edwards, Jon Gaunt or Julie Allbray.

Nor, so far as I can ascertain, were any steps taken to
obtain and preserve emails etc with regard to Sergeant Jones’s statement to Mr.
Mitchell, “The Met doesn’t want a misconduct hearing.”. That failure, it seems
to me, leaves open the possibility that Sergeant Jones (and possibly others)
acted jointly with individuals in the Metropolitan Police to supress any
investigation of possible Police corruption surrounding the original incident
in Downing Street on 19th September
2012.

The latter seems to me potentially to be a hugely important
failure of investigation.

Failure to
consider Inspector Mackaill Daily Politics interview

Inspector Mackaill, around lunchtime on 12th
October 2012, gave an interview to the BBC’s Daily Politics programme.

See

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19925933

for a recording of the Daily Politics interview.

The Reakes-Williams investigation, so far as I can
establish, failed to identify the existence and/or potential significance of
that interview.

Inspector Mackaill ostensibly wished to clear up an
integrity issue. Yet he asks not a single question of Andrew Mitchell at the
meeting later that day nor, after the meeting with Andrew Mitchell, does he
report to the Professional Standards Department of the Metropolitan Police
Service that one or more Police officers may be corrupt.

Inspector Mackaill should have been interviewed under
caution regarding this Daily Politics interview and the Press Release of 11th
October 2012.

My interpretation of this unexamined evidence is that
Inspector Mackaill set out to destabilise a Government Minister for political
ends.

Failure to
consider the “expect fireworks” media briefing

An unidentified person told the media to “expect fireworks”
after the meeting that the three officers held with Andrew Mitchell.

for the relevant comment, probably made by Michael Crick of
Channel 4. The “expect fireworks” statement is at 1:40 in the recording.

The Reakes-Williams investigation could not be aware of the
16th October 2013 recording but it was, I believe, aware that the
media had been led to expect something resembling fireworks.

The investigation failed to interview Sergeant Ian Edwards,
Jon Gaunt and Julie Allbray as to whom they had spoken to and specifically ask
what they had said to each media person contacted.

The investigation also failed, so far as I can ascertain, to
obtain and examine documents such as emails among the three officers and
between any of them and Ian Edwards, Jon Gaunt and Julie Albray. It seems to me
that these are serious failures of investigation.

Failure to
recognise the “Catch 22” for Andrew Mitchell

One of the most serious failings of the Reakes-Williams
investigation, in my view, was the failure to recognise that Andrew Mitchell
was, in effect, “set up” by Inspector Mackaill, Detective Sergeant Hinton and
Sergeant Jones.

At the meeting, it seems to me that Andrew Mitchell had only
three options:

To
stick to his story

To
refuse to tell the three officers what he had said

To
admit he had been lying about his alleged use of the words “plebs” and
“morons”

Whichever way forward Mr. Mitchell might choose he was
“toast”.

In one formulation Inspector Mackaill states, “As it
currently stands, there is an implication that the officers’ accounts are not
accurate. If Mr Mitchell is standing by that story then we have no alternative
but to call for him to resign.”

In another formulation Inspector Mackaill states, “I think
Mr. MITCHELL now has no option but to resign, he’s continuing to refuse to
elaborate on what happened,”

The unspoken third option was in the event that Mr. Mitchell
admitted he had been lying initially. If he admitted to having lied then,
inevitably, he would have to resign.

Mr. Mitchell was set up. There was no answer he could give
that could avoid Inspector Mackaill calling for his resignation.

Inspector Mackaill should be asked what answer Mr. Mitchell
could have given to avoid him calling for Mr. Mitchell’s resignation.

Failure to
consider possible misconduct in public office

So far as I can ascertain the Reakes-Williams investigation
failed to consider whether or not the conduct of the three officers might
constitute the criminal offence of Misconduct in Public Office.

That seeming failure seems to me to be a very serious
omission.

Failure to
consider possible perverting the course of justice

The comments made by two officers during the meeting with
Andrew Mitchell show that they were clear that, if Andrew Mitchell was telling
the truth, then one or more Metropolitan Police officers had lied and falsified
an official document.

Further, those two officers recognised an obligation to
report such possible/suspected Police dishonesty.

Inspector Mackaill heard all the discussion about those
matters, it would appear.

Further, Inspector Mackaill, in his interview with Daily
Politics clearly was aware of the issue of potential Police corruption.

None of the three officers formally reported suspected
Police corruption as, according to their own comments, they had a duty to do.

It seems to be of the utmost seriousness, arguably amounting
to perverting the course of justice, for Police officers to conceal suspected
corruption by other officers.

It seems to me that the failure of the Reakes-Williams
investigation to include this in the Terms of Reference and to appropriately
investigate possible perversion of the course of justice (or alternatively
“serious corruption” in the meaning of the IPCC Statutory Guidance) is a very
serious failing indeed.

Further, the Reakes-Williams investigation, so far as I can
ascertain, totally failed to establish exactly why the three officers failed to
report possible Police corruption to the Professional Standards Department of
the Metropolitan Police Service.

“Regulation 15”
Notices

The documentation provided to the Home Affairs Select
Committee refers on several occasions to “Regulation 15” notices.

So far as I’m aware there is, in the Police (Complaints and
Misconduct) Regulations 2012, no such concept.

It is unclear whether the problem is simply a typo in the
Smith/Reakes-Williams report which is picked up by more senior officers or is
such as possibly to render void the notices under which Inspector Mackaill,
Detective Sergeant Hinton and Sergeant Jones were interviewed.

If the latter is the case then use of any information
obtained from the three officers may not be admissable in any future misconduct
or criminal proceedings.

Conclusions

There
are multiple, material failures in the Reakes-Williams investigation.

The
effect of those failures is to render the investigation demonstrably inadequate.

Responsibility
for those failures seems to me to rest variously with the Police (in the
persons of Temporary Detective Inspector Smith, Chief Inspector
Reakes-Williams and the Appropriate Authorities) and with the IPCC (in the
persons of Deborah Glass and Mr. Bimson).

Deborah
Glass and others gave a false impression to the Home Affairs Select
Committee regarding the adequacy of the Reakes-Williams investigation.

The
failures in the Reakes-Williams investigation leave open the possibility
of a longer-lasting and more widely scoped Police conspiracy to pervert
the course of justice, possibly involving collusion between officials of
the West Midlands and Metropolitan Police Federations no later than 21st
September 2012 and possibly involving the Professional Standards
Department of the Metropolitan Police Service both before and after the
meeting of 12th October 2012.

It seems to me that both the Police and IPCC bear
responsibility for aspects of the failures listed.

Without disclosure of further detail of the process the
allocation of culpability must remain provisional.

Wednesday, 19 February 2014

Like many, when I have watched Deborah Glass making public presentations or giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee I've been impressed.

But, in my view at least, the reality is much less impressive. Indeed it gave me such cause for concern that I submitted the following formal complaint to the IPCC on 13th November 2013.

Notice that the letter also refers to a technique that, contrary to the applicable Law, the IPCC is using with the effect of kicking allegations of "serious corruption" by the Police into the long grass.

Shockingly, in my view, the IPCC refused to conduct an investigation into Ms. Glass's conduct.

That led me to lodge a formal complaint regarding Dame Anne Owers which is currently with Chris Blairs of the IPCC Sponsor Unit in the Home Office for formal consideration.

The issues of competence and integrity which I raise in the complaint about Ms. Glass seem to me to have potentially serious implications for the credible conduct of the Hillsborough Inquests shortly to begin with Lord Justice Goldring as Coroner.

13th November 2013

Dame Anne Owers, IPCC

Anna O’Rourke, IPCC

Dear Dame Anne and Ms O’Rourke,

“Plebgate” and
“SuttonColdfieldGate” etc

1. Complaint
regarding Ms Deborah Glass

2. Systematic
concealment by IPCC of “serious corruption” by the Police

I ask Ms O’Rourke to read the relevant part of this letter
as a letter of formal complaint regarding IPCC Deputy Chair, Deborah Glass.

I ask Dame Anne Owers, in the first instance, to consider
point of concern number 2 above. I assume that, in due course, she will
formally be asked to consider the complaint regarding Deborah Glass.

The issues are, as you will see, connected hence the letter
being addressed jointly to you both.

Complaint
regarding Ms Glass

The complaint regarding Ms. Glass can broadly be summarised
under the following headings:

Failure
to investigate conduct of Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe in the aftermath of the
Hillsborough Disaster (my letter to Ms. Glass of 5th July 2013,
IPCC Reference Hillsborough, Deborah Glass letter of 23rd July
2013).

Failure
to investigate alleged perversion of the course of justice in the
Metropolitan Police Service (my letter to Ms. Glass of 11th
July 2013, IPCC Reference 2013/011365).

Unlinking
of the “Plebgate” and “SuttonColdfieldGate” investigations.

Misleading
the Home Affairs Select Committee and the public regarding the adequacy of
the Reakes-Williams investigation.

Ms Glass appears to me to have made a succession of inappropriate
decisions and/or misrepresented significant facts thus raising serious concerns
about her actions:

Ms
Glass refused to investigate the conduct of the then Inspector Hogan-Howe
at the Langsett Boys’ Club in Sheffield
on 15th April 1989 and his subsequent concealment of
potentially significant evidence. Could Ms Glass have been unaware of the
potential importance that the most senior Police officer in the UK had, it
seems, built his career on the concealment of discreditable conduct by a
colleague, who has subsequently been identified to me as the then Chief
Inspector Norman Bettison? It seems to me that Ms Glass made a significant
error in refusing to investigate my concerns.

I
wrote personally to Ms Glass regarding the matters surrounding the alleged
perversion of the course of justice by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Helen
Ball (while she was Assistant Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police).
The reply from Ms. Crowley of the IPCC did not correctly apply the Law, in
my view. A matter of this potential seriousness should not, in my view,
have been delegated to a junior member of staff, particularly in light of
the letter being personally addressed to Ms. Glass. My concerns about the
integrity of Operation Alice were, in effect, ignored.

The
SuttonColdfieldGate investigation was, so I understand, referred to the
IPCC as a linked investigation. In any case, Ms. Glass informed the HASC
that the Plebgate and SuttonColdfieldGate (my terms) investigations were
linked. The IPCC, presumably in the person of Ms. Glass, apparently
unlinked the Plebgate and SuttonColdfieldGate investigations. On what
basis? So far as I’m aware neither the Metropolitan Police Service nor the
three Midlands Police Forces have seriously investigated the relevant
evidence. If it was Ms. Glass who unlinked the investigations I ask for a
justification for her doing so. It seems to me that the action of
unlinking has the potential to conceal a possible conspiracy between
officers in the Metropolitan Police Service and Police officers in the
west of the Midlands. See the enclosed
Critique.

The
Reakes-Williams investigation is demonstrably deficient, yet Ms. Glass
told the Home Affairs Committee and the public that the investigation was
satisfactory. The attached critique identifies multiple failings in the
Reakes-Williams investigation. I believe that Ms. Glass misled the HASC
and the public.

I can provide further information about the four elements of
the complaint regarding Ms. Glass on request. However, the IPCC has, I think,
the relevant documents already in its posssession and I think I have expressed
enough of the facts for the basis of my concerns to be clear.

Of course Ms Glass should be afforded the opportunity to
explain what happened.

In passing I wish to state that, having watched Ms. Glass
give evidence to the HASC and make public statements on a number of matters, I
have generally viewed her as intelligent and diligent. In other Hillsborough
correspondence with me she has appeared to be efficient and to have a good
grasp of the relevant issues.

Sustained concealment
by IPCC of “serious corruption”

My understanding of the Law is that a recordable conduct
matter regarding alleged “serious
corruption” (in the meaning of the IPCC Statutory Guidance) is subject to
mandatory recording and referral to the IPCC.

In 2013, initially with the Serious Misconduct Investigation
Unit of the Metropolitan Police Service, I raised concerns that Deputy
Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball had perverted the course of justice with
respect to Thames Valley Police URN514 of 28th October 2010, a
report by me of suspected murder.

Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey replied to me refusing to
record a “complaint”. Of course, I had not made a “complaint” I had written to
report what I consider to be a “recordable conduct matter” with respect to
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ball.

I then wrote to Commissioner Hogan-Howe on 9th
July 2013 indicating that such alleged “serious corruption” was, as I
understood the Law, a mandatory referral to the IPCC.

Four months later I have received no reply from the
Commissioner.

On 11th July 2013, having little faith in the
integrity of the Commissioner, I wrote to Ms. Glass a letter entitled “Can the
Professional Standards Department of the Metropolitan Police be trusted?”. My
recollection is that the envelope was marked “Strictly Personal” since I viewed
the issues raised in that letter as being of such seriousness that someone of
the authority of Ms. Glass should consider the matters raised.

To my horror I received from the IPCC a refusal to allow an
“appeal” against a refusal to record a “complaint”.The letter was from Leanne Crowley and the
IPCC reference was 2013/011365. I had not, in my own estimation, made a
“complaint”. I had reported what I believed then, and continue to believe,
constituted “serious corruption” in the meaning of the IPCC Statutory Guidance.
It was my that this was a recordable conduct matter (not a “complaint”) and
that remains my view.

In effect a letter sent personally to Ms Glass was diverted
to a junior member of staff.

The effect of Ms. Crowley’s response is inter alia to conceal alleged “serious corruption” by Deputy
Assistant Commissioner Ball. At least that is my view.

This is not an isolated mistake of this kind by the IPCC.

When, on 28th October 2013, I sent by email an
advance copy of a letter relating to multiple potential recordable conduct
matters regarding events at Sutton Coldfield on 12th October 2012 I
received an email from a Mr. Simon Roome again referring to a “complaint” when
the matter in question was multiple conduct matters, in my view.

IPCC reference was 2013/017081.

Again a letter explicitly for Ms. Glass’s attention was
diverted to or dealt with by a junior member of staff who, in my estimation,
visibly failed to handle the issues raised in accordance with the applicable
Law.

Further, IPCC 2013/013231 processed a supposed “appeal”
regarding a supposed “complaint” regarding Thames Valley Police. Again, in my
estimation, I had not made a “complaint”. I had reported a recordable conduct
matter.

It seems to me that, systematically, the IPCC is allowing
Police forces to conceal alleged “serious corruption” when a Police force
incorrectly processes a “recordable conduct matter” as a “complaint” contrary,
in my understanding, to the requirements of the applicable Law.

I ask that Dame Anne look into this seeming systematic
failing on the part of IPCC staff and consider what action is required to
remedy what appear to me to be systematic failings on the part of the IPCC in
applying the applicable Law.

If my concerns are well founded it seems to me that the
matters raised are of such seriousness as to require examination by the IPCC in
accordance with applicable Law.

I ask that the IPCC exercises its powers to compel referral
of the recordable conduct matters to which I refer herein. That seems to me to
be a necessary first step.

Further, given that it seems inherently unlikely that I
alone have been affected by the suspected failing on the part of the IPCC I ask
that a formal investigation is carried out to identify any further such cases.
I ask to be informed of the nature and scope of any such investigation and to
be given a copy of any report produced.

It seems to me that if the IPCC is systematically concealing
alleged “serious corruption” by the Police then something very serious is wrong
within the IPCC.

If the IPCC should consider that the matters I refer to
above are not alleged “serious corruption” and/or are not recordable conduct
matters I would appreciate a detailed written justification of that position.

If the IPCC should consider that Police forces are correct
in Law to “kick into touch” alleged “serious corruption” by the simple
expedient of misclassifying “serious corruption” (a recordable conduct matter)
as a “complaint” I would appreciate a detailed written justification of why
that should be considered to be lawful.

If my concerns prove to be well-founded in Law it seems to
me that something very serious has gone wrong in the process of the IPCC
holding Police forces to account for alleged “serious corruption”.

If Dame Anne comes to the conclusion that my concerns have a
sound foundation I ask that she informs the Home Affairs Select Committee in
connection with its inquiry entitle Leadership and Standards in the Police.

Informal
Resolution

My concerns regarding Ms. Glass’s conduct clearly raise
matters of the Public Interest which may preclude Informal Resolution being the
appropriate way forward or, at least, the way forward for all aspects of my
complaint.

However, if it is possible to resolve one or more aspects of
my concern by Informal Resolution procedures I am open to discuss that
possibility.

Distribution of
this letter

In the first instance I am copying this letter and its
attachment to Keith Vaz MP, Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee in
light of my concern that Ms. Glass may have misled the Committee and the
relevance of the perceived systematic failures by the IPCC to the HASC inquiry
into Leadership and Standards in the Police..

I reserve the right to distribute copies of this letter to
relevant media outlets given the potential seriousness of the matters raised
herein. In the first instance I currently intend to give the IPCC time to
consider the complaint about Ms. Glass’s conduct and the issue of the IPCC, in
my view, acting contrary to the requirements of the Law and systematically concealing
alleged “serious corruption” by the Police.

I would view any attempt by the IPCC to attempt to stifle
public discussion of these potentially immensely important issues as being
highly improper.

Actions Requested

In the first instance I ask that Ms O’Rourke acknowledges
receipt of the complaint regarding Ms. Glass and that Dame Anne acknowledges
receipt of the concerns regarding systematic concealment by the IPCC of
“serious corruption”.

I appreciate that definitive consideration of my expressed
concerns will take a little time and intend to afford the IPCC the opportunity
to consider these potentially very important issues by thorough investigation.